SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes
and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.

See the CBN News story, “How California Fuels Its Own Fires: ‘Families Suffering Trauma and Harm Because of Bad State Government'” (this story includes California Congressman Tom McClintock’s expert explanation of how wildfires quickly spread because “our forests are catastrophically overgrown.”

The Carr Fire in Shasta County is the 7th most destructive fire in California history, killing at least 6 people and destroying 2,546 structures, including homes and businesses.

And that’s just 1 of 17 “uncontained” wildfires up and down California right now.

In 2017, there were 9,133 separate wildfires in California; so far in 2018, there have been 4,457 separate wildfires in the formerly Golden State (now the “Burning Up State”). Do you accept this? If not, why do “environmentalist” politicians (known mostly as Democrats)?

It used to be that responsible politicians believed Smokey Bear’s reality-based message, “Only you can prevent forest fires.” But now, too many “progressive” politicians silently excuse evil pyromaniacs and negligent transients, and publicly blame “climate change” instead. They’re feigning sympathy while people’s lives and property are going up in smoke.

This is totally unacceptable. California families are suffering trauma and harm because of a bad state government. If 2017’s fires weren’t enough, will you demand that California’s Democrat politicians stop claiming that year-round wildfires are “the new normal”? Don’t let them deceive you. What if politicians claimed there was nothing they could do to prevent violent crime?

Candidates running for state office in California need to answer this question: “What will you do to prevent wildfires?” If they blame “climate change” or just say more funding is needed, this election year is your opportunity to fire them or replace them due to their lackluster attitude about wildfires that are directly harming California families.

There ought to be new fire-prevention laws, like these:

1. Publicize and impose new stiff penalties, including prison time, for people who cause wildfires either through neglect or pyromania. Since uncaring transients and evil boys and young men are likely perpetrators of most of the California wildfires, every government “homeless” agency needs to hand pamphlets to every transient they see and every government school must drum into the heads of children why we need to “love our neighbor” and why setting fires is wrong. Church schools can and should add fear of God and that God is watching.

2. Clear out dead trees, bushes and brush from all “public” lands in California. Get rid of this dry wood and grass that easily spread fires, because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Do it despite the opposition of “environmental groups,” which apparently value dead plants more than live people.

3. Pass a new law requiring a wide-enough barrier between hillside homes and wild brush to stop the spread of flames and sparks. Since wind-borne sparks can jump freeways, the barrier needs to be at least that wide. A wide-enough width must be studied, because people and their property matter more than weeds and wildbrush. Any Democrat politician who bows to opposition environmental groups on this is not a “public servant.”

4. Purchase many more planes and helicopters that can fight wildfires better and faster. This can be done using existing funds, but liberals are loathe to cut government waste, aren’t they? Republican state legislators should introduce bills cutting waste, fraud, and abuse and spend the saved money on a new quick-response, wildfire “air force” for California. Even if the ruling Democrats kill these Republican bills, the Republicans could publicly pressure the Democrats to come up with their own bill to buy more planes and copters and station them in high-risk areas of the state.

Bottom line, Californians of all political stripes need to demand that our elected officials PREVENT wildfires in the future, and stop irresponsibly excusing themselves because the official fire report reads “cause unknown.” It’s like a corrupt and lazy police force that never names or arrests suspected criminals!

As many as 90 percent of wildland fires in the United States are caused by humans. Human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, negligently discarded cigarettes, and intentional acts of arson.Wildfire Causes, U.S Dept. of the Interior

SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.

Everything that Creator God made, the devil and his followers hate.

That’s the heart of the issue in Dixon, California, where a city councilman’s public support for real marriage, real family, and natural male-female differences are under intense attack.

At the July 24 Dixon City Council meeting, perverse activists and their supporters outnumbered pro-family speakers at the podium. But in the midst of this darkness, SaveCalifornia.com and our friends at California Mass Resistance shined our light of truth.

I was encouraged that we “scored” for your values by earning media that reached thousands of viewers and readers. Regular people heard from SaveCalifornia.com how UNFAIR and AGAINST FREE SPEECH homosexual activists really are.

Before the decision was announced, Randy Thomasson of Save California — a group that describes itself as a “pro-family organization: working, speaking and fighting the good fight for your values” — announced that he was going to speak at the meeting.

Thomasson spoke in favor of the council’s decision and said that Hickman spoke the truth.

“The intolerant left has picked a fight with Ted Hickman, they don’t think he had the right to say what he said in a column, and they don’t think the newspaper that published it had the right to publish it,” Thomasson said. “Well, both accusations are completely false — we have a Constitution in our country: the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech for individuals, and freedom of the press for all publications.”

Thomasson showed onlookers graphic photos of gay men at pride parades, and eventually submitted the photos to the Dixon City Council for review.

“Ted Hickman doesn’t want this in Dixon, and the majority of people in Dixon don’t want it here, either,” Thomasson said of the photos.

Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, came from Sacramento to address the council.

“It’s basic fairness if there is an LGBT pride parade or day, that a straight or natural pride day must also be permitted,” he said. “For years, LGBT activists have said, ‘Accept our alternative lifestyles.’ Now the tables have turned, they won’t accept any alternatives to their day and that’s not fair in America.”

It’s clear that the homosexual-transsexual agenda, which tramples all that is good and right, want to “take” another city. Ted Hickman’s reelection or defeat in November will be a referendum on Real Marriage, Real Family, and Real Sex versus a perverse, lie-based agenda that is intolerant of proven family values.

While SaveCalifornia.com doesn’t support or oppose candidates, we’re working hard at reminding folks that a man and a woman are required for marriage, for sexual intercourse, and for the miraculous conception of children. God’s designs truly benefit people, and with your help, SaveCalifornia.com will keep fighting for the next generation.

It’s in-your-face tyranny from judicial activists on the California Supreme Court. They’ve again abused their limited power by REMOVING the “3 Californias” initiative (Proposition 9) from the November 6 ballot. This is despite the California State Constitution’s foundational declaration that:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

There is NOTHING in California state law permitting the California Supreme Court to remove an initiative for any reason. And there is no law in the California Constitution or California statutes that gives any court carte blanche to strike propositions it doesn’t like from the ballot.

Consider that:

“3 Californias” has not failed to meet the procedural requirements to qualify for the ballot

“3 Californias” does not conflict with the federal or state constitution, or a federal statute

“3 Californias” does not violate any constitutional provision or statute, such as the rule requiring initiatives to encompass a single subject

Because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity, and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election, respondent Alex Padilla, as Secretary of State of the State of California, is directed to refrain from placing Proposition 9 on the November 6, 2018, ballot.

As usual, the big media is singing the same song and reporting it wrong. At issue is Article 18 of the California Constitution, concerning “Amending and Revising the Constitution.” In 1970, this article was changed from ONLY THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE having power to place such initiatives on the ballot, to ALSO RECOGNIZING THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO DO SO, inserting the words, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” (See Prop. 16 on the 1970 ballot: https://bit.ly/2JMLmqX).

Therefore, it was unconstitutional for the California Supreme Court to suggest that the People’s initiative to revise (or nullify) the California Constitution (Prop. 9 on the November 2018 ballot, known as “3 Californias”) somehow lacked “validity” — especially in light of the California State Constitution’s Article 2 (REAFFIRMED IN 1976), which declares “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”

What’s more, former Supreme Court Judge Marvin Baxter (one of the last constitutional ones), wrote in 1993: “Although the legislative power under our state Constitution is vested in the Legislature, ‘the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.’ (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.) Accordingly, the initiative power must be liberally construed to promote the democratic process. (Raven v. Deukmejian [(1990) 52 Cal. 3d 336,] 341 [276 [6 Cal. 4th 721] Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077].)

“Indeed, it is our solemn duty to jealously guard the precious initiative power, and to resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of its exercise. (Ibid., and cases cited.) As with statutes adopted by the Legislature, all presumptions favor the validity of initiative measures and mere doubts as to validity are insufficient; such measures must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears.” (https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/6/707.html)

So why did the California Supreme Court go against the People? Was it to satisfy the environmental activists who had sued to protect their statewide laws burdening businesses and jobs from being “non-applicable” in three “Californias”? This ruling by the state high court’s 6 current judges is a severe miscarriage of justice.

ACTION: Please expose this tyrannical act against the People on news sites and your social networking.